Two possible stategies

Two possible stategies

Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.


If you had to choose between those two options, which would it be?

I'd choose #1. This falls in with my desire to help others help themselves. We give them the guarantee that there are no more enemies coming in. But they have to kill those already inside by themselves. They'll either be wildly successful or get their arses kicked. If they get their arses kicked, the good thing is there are no more coming in. The Iraqis can get their **** back together and go back in and do the job right.

This guarantees they've earned their freedom. They've earned the right to say they did it themselves. All we did was give them the space to do it. Along with that, their army will become combat hardened. This makes them that much nastier when they join us in the fight against Iran. And maybe, just maybe, Persia can be reborn as the once great nation that it once was.
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
Evil Conservative Inc said:
Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.
Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.
Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.


Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.

Our "democracy" has changed itself. If you recall, we weren't exactly the peachy country we are now. We had slavery, few womens rights, racism, and a whole lot of problems. It took us many wars and millions of American deaths to get to where we are today. But America has since become one of the freest nations in the world (if not the freest). I wouldn't be surprised if it took a Civil War in Iraq to do the same. Sometimes it just takes a whole lof killing for people to realize how stupid it really is, especially over something like religion.
 

Johnny

Banned
Pull out everyone. Keep a few agents in high up places here and there. Important positions. Watch them very closely.

Should they even redevelop to a point where they could be a threat. Bomb the particular threat. Example a missile silo. The construction of a silo. or so on.
 

DOC

Off Topic Moderator
I too would go with 1, option 2 sounds a tad wrong to me and could result in alot of backlash. Also, with 1 as you said they would learn to help themselves, but there should be some safeguard if they start to lose or if the iraqi government begins to harbor the terrorists themselves.

And pulling out is and won't be for a very long time a viable option. Both Democrats and Republicans know this but will never admit. We broke the country and set something new up, therefore we are stuck until we are sure they can stand on their own. You break it, you but it. Standard rules for invading a country.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
Evil Conservative Inc said:
Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.


If you had to choose between those two options, which would it be?

I'd choose #1. This falls in with my desire to help others help themselves. We give them the guarantee that there are no more enemies coming in. But they have to kill those already inside by themselves. They'll either be wildly successful or get their arses kicked. If they get their arses kicked, the good thing is there are no more coming in. The Iraqis can get their **** back together and go back in and do the job right.

This guarantees they've earned their freedom. They've earned the right to say they did it themselves. All we did was give them the space to do it. Along with that, their army will become combat hardened. This makes them that much nastier when they join us in the fight against Iran. And maybe, just maybe, Persia can be reborn as the once great nation that it once was.

#1 is kind of unrealistic. We can't even seal the single-front US Mexican border, and we're hoping to seal the tripple Iraqi border? This is after a pull back? Nope. We can't even seal the Syrian-Iraqi border with our troops fully deployed. It's impossible to do it when they're limited to the US zone.

#2 is inviting trouble. Baghdad is too big to seal. So terrorists can start the fight, exodus Baghdad, leaving us to kill tons of civilians inside. This is great terrorist recruiting material.

Is there an option 3?
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Evil Conservative Inc said:
Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.
It is a viable option. Just because you made the mess doesn't mean we have to spend forever trying to clean it up. You failed again, deal with it.

I seem to recall that the same rationale above was used to say you couldn't pull out of Vietnam. Back then people had the sense to know when they were beaten (well, eventually) and when it was time to give up and stop wasting time, money and lives fighting an unwinnable war with no objectives just because they can't admit they failed.

Evil Conservative Inc said:
1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.
LOL.

I think that says it all.

Evil Conservative Inc said:
2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.
Most of the terrorists are foreign, this would only accomplish one thing; turn the entire world against you and create a massive rallying cry for Osama & Friends. I'll give you this, you conservatives sure know how to play into his hand. And in return he creates enough menace that you can keep getting elected. It's almost like you're working together. Wouldn't be all that illogical either, Islamic fundamentalists and the Religious Right want the same thing, just with the word "Mohammed" in place of "Jesus".

Module88 said:
Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.

Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.


Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.

Our "democracy" has changed itself. If you recall, we weren't exactly the peachy country we are now. We had slavery, few womens rights, racism, and a whole lot of problems. It took us many wars and millions of American deaths to get to where we are today. But America has since become one of the freest nations in the world (if not the freest). I wouldn't be surprised if it took a Civil War in Iraq to do the same. Sometimes it just takes a whole lof killing for people to realize how stupid it really is, especially over something like religion.
You're speaking sense! Who are you and what did you do with the real Mod!?

The Future now said:
It isn't that we can't just that we won't.
Okay, you can be the one who pays double taxes to pay for it all.
 

S Z

Diabloii.Net Member
You been listening to Rush again Smeg?

The Comedian Rush Limbaugh said:
…We're trying to build a democracy; these people are going to have to learn to defend it; they can only do that by failing and dusting themselves off. The irony here that Lowry points out is that that is what the Democrats are saying, "Get out of there and let the Iraqis have this," yet they hate him. Their hate is irrational. It's not based on substance and strategy. Looking at the Woodward book, I have a strategery, folks. I think there's two things we can do in Iraq. Let me run them by you and see what you think. The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:

"We're going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody's getting into this country. If we have to, we'll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we're out." The second strategy is, "You don't want to go for that?" We say to the Iraqis, "All right, here's what we're going to do. We're going to take everybody we got and we're going to bring 'em into Baghdad and we're going to do search-and-destroy and we're going to take out anything that looks like an insurgent and we're going to take out anything that looks like a sympathizer, a terrorist or whatever, we're going to clean this place out — and then it's up to you."

Those are two things that are… Well, they're think pieces. I'm just thinking about this. But they both center on the fact that the Iraqis are going to have to at some point take care of all this. We'll either take care of it in Baghdad for them and we'll clear the place out and leave it up to them, or we'll go back to the borders and we'll make sure nobody is getting in there, and: "You clear out who's there. We'll go to Turkey, wherever we have to go to keep people from getting in, but it's up to you guys to wipe them out." Give them those two options. In either example, it is Shock and Awe of one form or another.
Extra points for guessing how his hypothetical co-incides with Murtha's plan.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
S Z said:
You been listening to Rush again Smeg?



Extra points for guessing how his hypothetical co-incides with Murtha's plan.
It's kind of scary that Limbaugh is giving hypos. He is severely limited sort of speak. The least he could do is consult it with the US military or any GOP think-tank before throwing out geo-political ideas.

Invade Turkey? Are we talking about the same Turkey with military traditions going back several centuries with a gigantic army who's military hardware have just been updated by the Israelis? The few Muslim-secular state that we can actually rely upon with 5 decades of membership in NATO?

Limbaugh is a public person and owes his audience a duty to do some homework before he throws out ideas. Some people may confuse his ideas with journalism and take him seriously.
 

soul killer

Banned
Look, theres a simple solution to everything.
Just chuck a couple of Nukes there, no worries.
Im sure we all want to do that and stop all of this bull**** once and for all.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Option 4: Keep coming up with stories like these ...

New Plan, New Hopes For Peace In Iraq

Iraqi Lawmakers Endorse Plan to Stop Killings, but Leaders Still Have to Work Out Details
... as we continue to build and occupy our permanent military bases in Iraq. When the oil runs out, we declare victory and return home.
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
When the oil runs out, we declare victory and return home.
Serious question: are we (the USA) importing more oil now from Iraq than before the invasion? Honestly, I want to know.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Amra said:
Serious question: are we (the USA) importing more oil now from Iraq than before the invasion? Honestly, I want to know.
Iraq currently produces around 1.8 million billons/day ... pre war levels were about 2.5 million bbls/day. Those durn Iraqis keep blowing up our pipelines, raising holy hell, and thwarting the best laid imperial plans of Wolfowitz/Chalabi to privitize the Iraqi petroleum fields.

In fact, Iraq has the 2nd leading proven petroleum reserves in the world. Saudia Arabia has the most.:

In 2003, the Persian Gulf countries (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) produced about 27% of the world's oil, while holding 57% (715 billion barrels) of the world's crude oil reserves. OECD gross oil imports from Persian Gulf countries averaged about 11.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) during 2003, accounting for 46% of the OECD's total net oil imports. Besides oil, the Persian Gulf region also has huge reserves (2,462 trillion cubic feet -- Tcf) of natural gas, accounting for 45% of total proven world gas reserves.
DOE.GOV

Miilitary and economic control of this area has alway been part of our grand strategy:

the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Do you get it now Amra? Our American Empire has encircled the globe with military bases, not just for defense during the previous Cold War, but to now insure, that our access to strategically important areas/resources will be available to us.

This was the underlying reason for the Iraq war. It was not about WMD, AQ ties, nor establishing democracy. Rather, the war was about control of their strategic petroleum reserves of the Middle East and Caspian area should other foreign nations (eg. Venezuela) embargo our nation.

The bombings of 9/11 gave us the excuse. The administration lied and duped the American into war. We invaded, slaughtered, conquered, and set up our own government with puppet leaders to do to our bidding. We are still exaggerating the actual threat of terrorists ... exaggerations made easier by torturing of prisoners and subsequent use of their "confessions". The GOP congress has gone right along with this idea with their approval of the recent torture bill. Anyone opposed to such blantant violations of the Geneva Conventions and/or unconstitutional ideas are either branded "soft on terror", " cut and run wimps", or worse. (Juan Cole}

In the end, this administration never formulated an exit plan for Iraq. Why should they? They never really planned on leaving ...



Wake up people! Is this really the kind of America that you want? Is this the kind of leadership and policies that you were brought up to believe were noble and right?

You can change this course ... you have the power.

Vote this November and let your voice be heard.
 
Top